Skip to main content
. 2019 May 8;11:102. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2019.00102

Table 1.

Quality assessment.

References Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Score
Liang et al., 2002 3
Liang et al., 2003 4
Park et al., 2003 6
Kim et al., 2005 4
Kang et al., 2007 3
Jeon et al., 2008 5
Choi et al., 2009 3
Jia et al., 2009 4
Hong et al., 2010 4
Jia et al., 2010 3
Kim et al., 2010 3
Yu et al., 2010 6
Choi et al., 2011a 4
Choi et al., 2011b 4
Kim et al., 2011a 5
Kim et al., 2011b 5
Wang et al., 2011 6
Yeo et al., 2013 5
Huo et al., 2012 6
Sun et al., 2012 5
Rui et al., 2013 6
Wang et al., 2013 5
Yu et al., 2016 5
Kim et al., 2014 5
Deng et al., 2015 5
Lv et al., 2015 6
Park et al., 2015 5
Shen et al., 2015 4
Yeo et al., 2015 3
Jia et al., 2017 6
Sun et al., 2016 7
Tian et al., 2016 2
Yang et al., 2011 6
Yang et al., 2017 6
Park et al., 2017 6
Jeon et al., 2017 5
Lee et al., 2018 5
Lu et al., 2017 6
Li et al., 2017a 2
Li et al., 2017b 2
Lin et al., 2017 4
Wang et al., 2018 5

Q1, publication in a peer-reviewed journal; Q2, statements describing control of temperature; Q3, random allocation to treatment or control; Q4, blinded building of model; Q5, use of aged animal model; Q6, blinded assessment of outcome; Q7, use of anesthetic without significant intrinsic neuroprotective activity; Q8, sample size calculation; Q9, compliance with animal welfare regulations; Q10, declared any potential conflict of interest.